CHAPTER IV_Practical Argumentation

THE INTRODUCTION--CONVICTION

As soon as the persuasive portion of an introduction has rendered the

audience friendly, attentive, and open to conviction, the process of

reasoning should begin. First of all, it is the duty of the arguer to

see that the meaning of the proposition is perfectly clear both to

himself and to all the people whom he wishes to reach. If the arguer

does not thoroughly comprehend his subject, he is likely to produce

only a jumble of facts and reasoning, or at best he may establish a

totally different proposition from the one that confronts him; if the

audience fails to understand just what is being proved, they remain

uninfluenced. The amount of explanation required to show what the

proposition means varies according to the intelligence of the people

addressed and their familiarity with the subject.

DEFINITION.

To begin with, if there are any unfamiliar words in the proposition,

any terms or expressions that are liable to be misunderstood or not

comprehended instantly, they must be defined. At this point the arguer

has to exercise considerable judgment both in determining what words

to define and in choosing a definition that is accurate and clear.

Synonyms are almost always untrustworthy or as incomprehensible as the

original word, and other dictionary definitions are usually framed

either in too technical language to be easily grasped or in too

general language to apply inevitably to the case at hand.

DEFINITION BY AUTHORITY. As a rule, the very best definitions that can

be used are _quotations_ from the works of men distinguished for

their knowledge in the special subject to which the word to be defined

belongs. The eminent economist defines economic terms; the statesman,

political terms; the jurist, legal terms; the scientist, scientific

terms; the theologian, the meaning of religious phraseology. To

present these definitions accurately, and to be sure of the author's

meaning, one should take the quotations directly from the author's

work itself. If, however, this source is not at hand, or if time for

research is lacking, one may often find in legal and economic

dictionaries and in encyclopaedias the very quotations that he wishes

to use in defining a term. It is always well, in quoting a definition,

to tell who the authority is, and in what book, in what volume, and on

what page the passage occurs.

Another convenient way of using definition by authority is not to

quote the entire definition but to _summarize_ it. Frequently an

authoritative definition is so exhaustive that it covers several pages

or even chapters of a book. In such a case the arguer may well

condense the definition into his own words, not omitting, however, to

name the sources used. The following example is an excellent

illustration of this method:--

The bearing of the Monroe Doctrine on all these contentions and

counter contentions is not at once evident to the casual observer....

Of course with changing times its meaning has changed also, for no one

attempts to declare it to be as immutable as the law of the Medes and

Persians. It is applied in various ways to meet varying conditions.

Nevertheless, I may say I believe, after a perusal of the more

important works on the subject, that during the forescore years of its

existence two principles have steadily underlain it: (1) that Europe

shall acquire no more territory for permanent occupation upon this

continent; (2) that Europe shall affect the destinies of, that is

exert influence over, no American state.[Footnote: A. B. Hart,

_Foundations of American Foreign Policy_, chap. VII; J. W.

Foster, _A Century of American Diplomacy_, chap. XII; J. A.

Kasson, _The Evolution of the Constitution of the United States of

America_, pages 221 ff. [Footnote: Nutter, Hersey & Greenough,

Specimens of Prose Composition, p. 218. ] ]

DEFINITION BY ILLUSTRATION. Since the purpose of each step in the

reasoning portion of the introduction is to convey information

accurately, quickly, and, above all else, clearly, a particularly good

method for defining terms is by illustration. In using this method,

one holds up to view a concrete example of the special significance of

the word that is being explained. He shows how the law, or custom, or

principle, or whatever is being expounded works in actual practice.

For example, if he is advocating the superiority of the large college

over the small college, he should define each term by giving specific

examples of large colleges and of small colleges. The advantage of

this method lies in its simplicity and clearness, qualities which

enable the audience to understand the discussion without much

conscious effort on their part. Investigation reveals that the

definitions of great writers and speakers are replete with

illustration. Whenever the student of argumentation has something to

define that is particularly intricate or hard to understand, he should

illustrate it. If he fails to find already prepared an illustrative

definition that exactly fits his needs, he will often do well to learn

just what the term means, and then make his own illustration.

Consider how this method has been used. The Hon. Charles Emory Smith

defines reciprocity as follows:--

Its principle, rightly understood, is axiomatic. Brazil grows coffee

and makes no machinery. We make machinery and grow no coffee. She

needs the fabrics of our forges and factories, and we need the fruit

of her tropical soil. We agree to concessions for her coffee and she

agrees to concessions for our machinery. That is reciprocity.

The following is a definition of free silver by The Hon. Edward O.

Leech, former Director of the Mint:--

It is important to understand clearly and exactly what the free

coinage of silver under present conditions means. It may be defined as

the right of anyone to deposit silver of any kind at a mint of the

United States, and have every 371.25 grains of pure silver (now worth

in its uncoined state about 52 cents) stamped, free of charge, "One

Dollar," which dollar shall be a full legal tender at its face value

in the payment of debts and obligations of all kinds, public and

private, in the United States.

In upholding his opinion that a majority of the members of the House

of Representatives have the right to make the rules governing

parliamentary procedure in the House, The Hon. Thomas B. Reed

carefully defines the term "rights":--

It is the fault of most discussions which are decided incorrectly that

they are decided by the misuse of terms. Unfortunately, words have

very little precision, and mean one thing to one man and a different

thing to another. Words are also used with one meaning and quoted with

another. When men speak of the rights of minorities and claim for them

the sacredness of established law, they are correct or incorrect

according as they interpret the word "rights."

A man has a right to an estate in fee simple, a right to land, and

there is no right more indisputable under our system. Nothing but the

supreme law can take the estate away, and then only after

compensation. The same man has a right of passage over land used as a

highway, but his town or county can take that privilege away from him

without his consent and without compensation. In both cases the man

has rights, but the rights are entirely different, and the difference

arises from the nature of things. It is good for the community, or at

least it has been so thought, that a man should have unrestricted

right over his land. On it he can build as high as heaven or dig as

deep as a probable hereafter. This is not because it is pleasant for

the man, but because it is best for the community. Therefore his right

to build or dig is limited by the right of eminent domain--the right

of the whole people to take his property at any time for the common

benefit on paying its value.

For the same reason the right of a man to walk over the land of a

roadway is an inferior right which may more easily be taken from him;

for if it be more convenient for the whole community that nobody

should walk over that land, each man's right, which is a perfect right

while it exists, is taken away from him, and he alone bears the loss.

It is hardly necessary to multiply examples in order to lay a

foundation for the assertion that the rights, so called, of any man or

set of men, have their foundation only in the common good.

EXPLANATION.

Not only must the arguer define the unfamiliar words that occur in the

proposition, but he must also explain the meaning of the proposition

_taken as a whole_. Since an audience often has neither the

inclination nor the opportunity to give a proposition careful thought

and study, the disputant himself must make clear the matter in

dispute, and show exactly where the difference in opinion between the

affirmative and the negative lies. This process is of great

importance; it removes the subject of dispute from the realm of mere

words--words which arranged in a formal statement are to many often

incomprehensible--and brings out clearly the _idea_ that is to be

supported or condemned.

To discover just what the proposition means, the arguer must weigh

each word, carefully noting its meaning and its significance in the

proposition. To neglect a single word is disastrous. An

intercollegiate debate was once lost because the affirmative side did

not take into consideration the words "present tendency" in the

proposition, "_Resolved_, That the present tendency of labor

unions is detrimental to the prosperity of the United States." The

negative side admitted everything that the affirmative established,

namely, that unions are detrimental; and won by showing that their

_tendency_ is beneficial. In another college debate on the

subject, "_Resolved_, That the United States should immediately

dispose of the Philippines," one side failed to meet the real point at

issue because it ignored the word "immediately." A thorough

explanation of the proposition would have shown the limitations that

this word imposed upon the discussion.

In the next place, the arguer should usually present to the audience a

brief history of the matter in dispute. Many debatable subjects are of

such a nature that the arguer himself cannot, until he Has studied the

history of the proposition, fully understand what constitutes the

clash in opinion between the affirmative and the negative sides. To

understand the debate, the audience must possess this same

information. A history of the idea contained in the proposition would

be absolutely necessary to render intelligible such subjects as: "The

aggressions of England in the Transvaal are justifiable"; "The United

States should re-establish reciprocity with Canada"; "Football reform

is advisable."

In the last place, the arguer must give his audience all essential

information concerning the matter in dispute. For example, if the

proposition is, "Naturalization laws in the United States should be

more stringent," a mere definition of "naturalization laws" is not

enough; the disputant must tell just what naturalization laws exist at

the present time, and just how stringent they are to-day. Again, if

the subject is, "The United States army should be enlarged," the

arguer must tell exactly how large the army is now. If the proposition

is, "The right of suffrage should be further limited by an educational

test," the arguer must state what limits now exist, and he must also

tell what is meant by "an educational test." In a debate the work of

the affirmative and of the negative differ slightly at this point.

Since the proposition reads _an educational test_, the advocate

for the affirmative has the privilege of upholding any sort of

educational test that he wishes to defend, provided only that it comes

within the limits of "an educational test." He may say that the test

should consist of a knowledge of the alphabet, or he may advocate an

examination in higher mathematics; _but he is under obligation to

outline carefully and thoroughly some specific system_. The

negative, on the other hand, must be prepared to overthrow whatever

system is brought forward. If the affirmative fails to outline any

system, the negative has only to call attention to this fact to put

the affirmative in a very embarrassing position.

The following quotations are good illustrations of how a proposition

may be explained:--

The supremely significant and instructive fact, in the dealings of

society with crime in our day, and one which has not been fully

grasped as yet by the legal profession, not even by those who practice

in criminal courts, and who should be familiar with it, is this: We

have now two classes of institutions fundamentally distinct in

character and purpose, both of which are designed by society, erected

and conducted at public expense, for the purpose of dealing with

criminals. The most numerous class of these institutions consists of

prisons, in which to confine men for terms specified by the trial

courts as penalties for their offenses. The laws, under which

offenders are sentenced to these prisons, aim at classifying crimes

according to the degree of guilt they imply, and assigning to each of

them the penalty which it deserves. Thus, to these prisons are sent

men sentenced to confinement for two, five, ten, fourteen, or thirty

years, or for life, according to the name which the law attaches to

the crime proved upon them; and each man, when he has served the

prescribed term, is turned loose upon society. The other class of

institutions includes what are known as "reformatories." The

fundamental principle here is that an offender is sent to them not for

a term, but for a specified work. It is assumed that his character and

habits unfit him for social life. For reasons to be found in his own

nature, he cannot yet be trusted with freedom and the responsibilities

of citizenship. But he may possess the capacity to become an honest,

industrious, and useful citizen. To the reformatory, then, he is sent

to be educated; to be trained to habits of industry; above all, to be

disciplined in the habit of looking forward to the future with the

consciousness that his welfare and happiness to-morrow depend on his

conduct to-day, and that he is constantly shaping his own destiny. He

is expected to remain until it satisfactorily appears that this

training is effective, and he may then go forth with a prospect of

leading an honest and respectable life. This, in brief, is the

distinction between these two classes of institutions.

For a generation past, these two kinds of prisons have been standing

side by side in New York, Massachusetts, and other States. Each of

them has received many thousands of criminals under sentence for grave

offenses. Each of them has sent out thousands of inmates into the

world of human society, with whatever impress the life, teachings, and

associations of the institutions could make upon their natures, as a

preparation for their after career. What is the result?

[Footnote: Charlton T. Lewis, in North American Review, August, 1904.]

Congress has at last decided that the long-talked-of canal shall be

built, and shall be built at Panama. Those issues no longer confront

us. The question now to be decided concerns the kind of canal that

shall be constructed. Two plans have been suggested: the lock-canal

plan and the sea-level plan. The advocates of the lock-canal plan aim

to build a gigantic dam in the valley of the Chagres River; the

enormous artificial lake thus formed being used as part of the

passageway for the vessels. They say that this lake will be at an

elevation of about eighty-five feet above mean sea-level; the passage

to and from it will be made by means of canals at both ends, each

canal containing three locks. Thus there will be, if this plan is

adopted, six locks in the entire system. The canal will be of

sufficient width and depth to accommodate vessels of such size as may

be expected to be built when the canal is completed.

If the canal is built at sea-level, it will be of the same depth and

width as the lock-canal, but it will be at the level of the sea

throughout its entire length. Owing to the fact that the Atlantic and

the Pacific have a difference in extreme level of twenty feet, an

automatic tide-lock will have to be installed. A small lake will also

be built, merely to divert the Chagres and to furnish light and power.

The question that now confronts us is, "Which plan should be adopted?"

ISSUES.

Following the discovery of the real meaning of the proposition, comes

the finding of the issues. Whenever a man in business, professional,

or political life, or in any circumstances whatsoever, must determine

upon some policy or come to some decision regarding theoretical or

practical matters, he formulates his belief and chooses his line of

action in accordance with the answers that he makes to certain

questions either consciously or unconsciously present in his mind. For

instance, if he considers the purchase of a certain piece of real

estate, he says to himself: "Is the price fair?" "Have I the money to

invest?" "Can I sell or use the property to good advantage?" "How much

pleasure shall I derive from it?" If he answers these questions in one

way, the purchase is likely to be made; if in another, it is not.

Again, a board of college trustees may be considering the abolishment

of football. In arriving at a decision, they are confronted with these

questions: "Is the game beneficial or detrimental to the player?" "How

does it affect the college as a whole?" Those who favor the game will,

of course, say that it is a benefit to the player and the whole

college; while those who oppose it will maintain that it is a

detriment to all concerned. But evidently the same questions must be

met and answered by both sides. These questions are called

_issues_.

Issues are subdivisions of the subject under discussion, and are

always essentially the same for any given idea. The first requirement

for the issues of any proposition is that they be comprehensive; that

is, the sum of their ideas must equal the main idea expressed in the

proposition. To those who are carrying on the discussion and to the

audience, if there be one, it must be perfectly evident that these

questions cover the entire field of controversy; that if these

questions are satisfactorily answered in one way or the other, the

discussion is settled and nothing remains to be said. The second

requirement is that the issues consider only disputed matter. A

question that gives rise to no disagreement, that admittedly has but

one answer, is never an issue. _Issues, therefore, may be defined as

the questions that must be answered by both the affirmative and the

negative sides of the proposition under discussion and that, if

answered in one way, establish the proposition, and if answered in

another way, overthrow it_.

The issues of a proposition exist independently of the side that is

being upheld. The affirmative will find the same issues as the

negative, but it rarely happens that two men will divide a proposition

in exactly the same manner and thus state the issues in precisely the

same language. If, however, the work of both has been fair and

complete, their issues will not vary in any important particular. For

example, under the subject, "The Federal government should own and

operate the railroads of the United States," one person might give as

issues:--

1. Has the government the right to take the roads without the consent

of the present owners?

2. Is the government financially able to buy the roads?

3. Does the present system contain serious defects?

4. Will the proposed system remove these defects without bringing in

new evils equally serious?

Another might state as issues:--

1. Is the proposed plan practicable?

2. Will it benefit the people?

The issues in both instances, however, are essentially the same, as

questions one and two of the first list are equivalent to one of the

second; and three and four of the first, to two of the second.

At this point it may be well to mention a common error that must be

guarded against. It often happens that a question is stated as an

issue which is not a subdivision of the proposition at all, but is the

entire proposition itself, framed in slightly different language. Such

would be the error if the question, "Would the change be desirable?"

were used as an issue for the proposition, "All state colleges should

abolish military drill"

It sometimes happens that one is forced to defend or attack what has

been called a "combined proposition," a proposition that contains two

distinct subjects for argument. Such subjects are to be avoided as

much as possible, but when they must be met, it is usually necessary

to have two separate sets of issues. An example of such a proposition

would be, "All American colleges and universities should adopt the

honor system."

The only practicable method of finding the issues of a proposition is

to question it from all pertinent points of view, and then to

eliminate all questions that have no vital bearing on the subject, or

that are acknowledged to have but one answer. The questions that

remain are the issues. In using this method of analysis, one must be

careful to consider the proposition in all its phases and details, and

from both the affirmative and the negative sides. Neglect to give the

subject thorough consideration often results in one's being suddenly

confronted with an issue that he has not previously discovered and

consequently cannot meet. Failure to cast aside all questions that are

not real issues may cause equal embarrassment: an arguer never wishes

to waste time and effort in establishing proof that is not essential

to the argument, or that is admitted by the other side.

It is hardly possible even to suggest all the various kinds of

questions that may be asked about debatable subjects. An arguer must

depend largely upon his own judgment and common sense in analyzing

each proposition that he meets. He may, however, find the issues of

many propositions by carefully questioning them from certain important

and comprehensive points of view. The list of standpoints indicated

here is not exhaustive; only the more important and general

standpoints are considered. The student should bear in mind that the

following instructions are designed to teach him a practical method of

analysis; they do not constitute a formula that can be applied in all

instances.

First, the analysis of propositions of policy will be taken up;

secondly, the analysis of propositions of fact.

PROPOSITIONS OF POLICY.

1. IS THE PLAN PRACTICABLE? Whenever a plan is proposed, first ask

whether or not it is practicable. If those who oppose the idea can

maintain that great obstacles exist which will prevent the undertaking

of the project or hinder its execution, then the question of

practicability constitutes an important issue. For instance, one who

contemplates a thorough argument on the proposition, "The United

States navy should be greatly enlarged," must prove that the plan is,

or is not, practicable. Plainly, such hindrances as enormous expense,

inadequate facilities for building and repairing battleships, and the

increased demand for officers and sailors render questionable the

expediency of such a measure. This issue, however, is not found in

connection with all propositions; it does not concern propositions

that merely approve or condemn existing conditions or assert the

occurrence of an event. For example, practicability does not enter

into such subjects as these: "Strikes are justifiable"; "The present

powers of the Speaker of the House of Representatives are dangerously

great"; "Athletics have been excessively developed in American

colleges and universities." But all propositions that advocate a

change, that propose some new system of operation, usually have this

issue involved. Such subjects are: "American cities should own and

operate public plants for the furnishing of light, heat, and power";

"Military drill should be taught in the public schools"; "Porto Rico

should be given a territorial form of government."

2. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE A MORAL BENEFIT OR DETRIMENT TO THOSE

CONCERNED? Not all propositions, by any means, but many, are of such a

character that they must be considered from the standpoint of

morality. The arguer must ask whether the idea involved in the subject

is morally right or wrong; whether it is morally beneficial or

harmful. This point of view includes more than at first appears. It

takes into consideration justice, duty, honesty, faithfulness,

religion, everything that pertains to what is right or wrong. Under

the proposition, "The treatment of the American Indians by the United

States should be condemned," appears the moral issue, "What is our

_duty_ toward the people of this race?" The proposition, "Public

libraries, museums, and art galleries should be open on Sunday,"

presents this issue, "Is the method of recreation afforded by the

opening of these buildings in accordance with the teachings of the

Christian religion?" The proposition, "Football is an undesirable

college game," must be settled in part by the answer to the question,

"Is the game beneficial or harmful to the player's character?"

3. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE A MATERIAL BENEFIT OR DETRIMENT? In the

third place the proposition should be questioned from a material point

of view, to determine whether the plan is, or is likely to be, a

benefit or a detriment. In some form this issue will doubtless be

found in connection with almost every proposition of policy. In all

systems of government, of business, and even of education, material

betterment is invariably one of the ultimate objects sought. The

question of national expansion presents the issue, "Will such a course

add to the glory, the prestige, or the wealth of the nation?" When a

boy considers going to college, he desires to know whether a college

education is a valuable asset in business, social, or professional

life. An issue which puts to the touch the matter of personal gain is

sure to involve a substantial portion of the controversy. The arguer

who can decisively settle the question of dollars and cents always has

a strong argument. Usually the issue involving the question of

material benefit or detriment is plain and direct; sometimes, however,

it is partially concealed. A man debating on the affirmative side of

the proposition, "_Resolved_, That United States Senators should

be elected by a direct popular vote of the people," may urge as a

reason that such a method will result in purer politics. This

particular line of argument he may carry no farther, taking it for

granted that everyone will recognize the connection between honest

office holders and material gain.

4. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE AN INTELLECTUAL BENEFIT OR DETRIMENT? All

propositions that deal with education or with other matters that

pertain to man's progress and advancement should be viewed from an

intellectual standpoint. No person in discussing a measure bearing

upon the welfare of an individual, of a community, or of a nation, can

afford to neglect questioning its influence for mental advancement or

retrogression. Propositions relating to schools, colleges, and similar

institutions, and propositions dealing with social and industrial

conditions present this issue. Modern theories of government, both

municipal and national, are frequently based to some extent upon the

idea of teaching the people how to live and how to govern themselves.

The policy of the United States in the Philippines and in the West

Indies has been greatly influenced by the query, "How will it affect

the intellectual welfare of the people concerned?"

5. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE A PHYSICAL BENEFIT OR DETTRIMENT? All

subjects that concern the life, health, strength, or in any way bear

upon the physical well-being of man present this issue. An argument on

government ownership of railroads would have to answer the question,

"Under which system will fewer accidents occur?" All such propositions

as, "Eight hours ought legally to constitute a working day"; "State

boards of health should compel all persons afflicted with contagious

diseases to be quarantined"; "Football is an undesirable college

game," give rise to the issue of physical welfare.

6. WILL THE PROPOSED PLAN BE A POLITICAL BENEFIT OR DETRIMENT? If a

plan is of such far-reaching significance that its adoption or

rejection would affect a whole town, state, or nation, then its merits

usually depend to some extent upon its political significance. The

issue may take some such form as, "How will the system affect the

country politically?" "Will the system encourage bribery and graft, or

will it tend to do away with these evils?" "What will be its effect

upon bossism?"

7. HOW HAS THE PLAN SUCCEEDED WHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED? This question

frequently occurs as an issue in connection with all sorts of

propositions. Its importance and significance are so evident that no

explanation is needed. The value of precedent is known to every one.

8. DOES THE PRESENT SYSTEM CONTAIN SERIOUS EVILS? The asking of this

question is frequently one of the very best ways to get at the heart

of a proposition of policy. To be sure, this question overlaps and

embraces several other questions that have been suggested, but a

comprehensive issue like this is sometimes preferable from the

standpoint both of the arguer and of the audience. It removes from the

arguer the necessity of classifying each evil under the head of

_moral_, _financial_, _intellectual_, etc.; and in many

cases it results in an argument more easily understood by the

audience. In some form this issue applies to nearly all political,

economic, and financial propositions.

9. IF THE PRESENT SYSTEM DOES CONTAIN SERIOUS EVILS, WILL THE PROPOSED

SYSTEM REMOVE THEM? Equal in importance with the question as to

whether the existing system is defective, is the question as to

whether the proposed system will remove these defects, without, of

course, introducing equally great disadvantages. These two issues

almost invariably go together; they set the system advocated by the

affirmative and the system advocated by the negative side by side, and

compare and contrast each with the other.

10. IF THE PRESENT SYSTEM CONTAINS SERIOUS EVILS, IS THE PROPOSED

SYSTEM THE ONLY REMEDY? This last question is very closely connected

with the two preceding questions. The whole discussion may hinge not

on whether evils exist, but on how they shall be remedied. If the

argument takes this turn, the advocates of a certain system must show

that their plan is the only one suitable for adoption, or, at least,

is the best plan, while the negative must introduce and uphold a

totally different scheme. For instance, under the proposition, "The

United States army should be greatly enlarged," the first two issues

would probably be these: "Is the present army adequate to protect the

nation?" and "Is the enlargement of the army the _only_ means of

rendering the nation safe from invasion?"

PROPOSITIONS OF FACT.

1. DOES THE PROPOSITION STATE A POSSIBLE TRUTH? To find the issues of

a proposition of fact, first ask whether the occurrence in question

could have happened or the condition alleged in the proposition could

possibly have existed. This question is so important that if it can

conclusively be answered in the negative the discussion is ended.

Legal proceedings invariably center around some form of a proposition

of fact. In the criminal court a man to prove his innocence has only

to establish an alibi or prove physical inability to commit the crime

with which he is charged. Not always, of course, does the question of

possibility constitute an issue, since frequently the possibility is

admitted. Such would be the case if the following propositions came up

for discussion: "Joan of Arc was burned at the stake"; "Nero was

guilty of burning Rome." In these instances possibility gives way to

probability.

2. DOES THE PROPOSITION STATE A PROBABLE TRUTH? If the question of

possibility has been answered affirmatively or inconclusively, the

issue of probability next arises. In connection with many propositions

of fact this is the most important issue to be encountered. Unless a

condition or an event--its possibility being admitted--can be affirmed

or denied by reliable witnesses who testify from their own personal

knowledge of the matter, the most that any arguer can do is to

establish a balance of probability. Those who believe that Bacon wrote

the plays attributed to Shakespeare try to show how improbable it is

that a man like Shakespeare could have produced such works, and how

very likely it is that Bacon was the real author. Many criminals are

convicted or acquitted on evidence that establishes merely a strong

probability of guilt or of innocence.

3. IS THERE ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE PROPOSITION? In the

third place, a person who is trying to prove or disprove a proposition

of fact must consider the direct evidence involved. Indirect evidence

tends to establish the possibility or probability that a statement is

true or false, while direct evidence asserts that it is true or false.

Direct evidence on the question, "Country roads in New England are

inferior to those of the Middle West," would not be a description of

the topographical and geographical features of both regions, for this

information could at its best establish only a strong probability;

direct evidence on this subject would be the testimony of people who

have investigated the roads, and could thus speak from direct personal

knowledge.

This issue of direct evidence has two phases. The arguer must ask, "Is

any direct evidence available?" and "If there is any, what is its

value?" It is easily seen that not all evidence is equally reliable.

Both the man and what he says must be tested: the man for such

qualities as truthfulness, intelligence, and experience; the

statements for consistency and general credibility. The tests of

evidence are given in detail in another chapter.

TESTS FOR ISSUES.

After an arguer has secured his list of issues, he should test his

work by asking the four following questions:--

1. Does each issue really bear upon the proposition?

2. Is each issue a subdivision of the proposition, or is it the

proposition itself formulated in different language?

3. Does each issue comprise only disputed matter?

4. Do the issues, taken collectively, consider all phases of the

proposition?

Several illustrations will show more plainly just what issues are and

how they are used in connection with other parts of an introduction.

SHALL GREEK BE TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOLS?

In taking up the discussion of Greek in the high schools, I shall

consider these three questions: First, is Greek more valuable than

other studies in training the mind? Second, does the study of Greek

acquaint us with the best that has been known and said in the world,

and, therefore, with the history of the human spirit? And third, where

shall Greek be taught? [Footnote: W.F. Webster, The Forum, December,

1899, page 459.]

DOES COLONIZATION PAY?

The points to be considered in determining the somewhat mercenary

question, "Does Colonization Pay?" as viewed with regard to the

interests of the colonizing country, are: (1) the market that the

colonies afford for the goods which the colonizing country has to

sell; and whether control gives to the mother-country a larger share

of their market than she would have without that control; (2) the

supplies the colonies are able to furnish for use in the mother-

country; and whether the purchase of these supplies from the colonies

proves more advantageous to the mother-country than if they should be

purchased from other parts of the world; (3) the advantages, if any,

which accrue to the native population of the country controlled.

[Footnote: O. P. Austin, The Forum, January, 1900, p. 623.]

The following passage, taken from Daniel Webster's speech in which, as

counsel for the city of Boston, he argues that a certain piece of land

has not become a public highway, is a good illustration of an

introduction on what was virtually a proposition of fact. Notice with

what skill he cast aside all irrelevant matter and reduced the

proposition to clearly stated and indisputable issues:--

If this street, or land, or whatever it may be, has become and now

is a public highway, it must have become so in one of three ways, and

to these points I particularly call your honors' attention.

1st. It must have either become a highway by having been regularly

laid out according to usage and law; or

2nd. By _dedication_ as such by those having the power to

dedicate it, and acceptance and adoption so far as they are required;

3d. As a highway by long user, without the existence of proof of any

original laying out, or dedication.

It is not pretended by any one that the land in question is a highway,

upon the last of these grounds. I shall therefore confine myself to

the consideration of the other two questions: namely. Was there ever a

formal and regular laying out of a street here? or was there ever a

regular and sufficient dedication and acceptance? [Footnote: The Works

of Daniel Webster, Vol. VI, p. 186. Little, Brown & Co., Boston,

1857.]

PARTITION.

In college debate, though not frequently elsewhere, the issues as a

rule are immediately followed by a series of statements that show how

each issue is to be answered. These statements constitute what is

known as the _partition_. When a partition is made, each

statement becomes a main point to be established by proof in the

discussion. The following portion of a student's argument contains

both the issues and the partition:--

In considering, then, whether colleges should adopt the system of

exempting from final examinations all students who have attained an

average daily grade of eighty-five per cent. or over, we have only to

consider the effect such a rule would have upon the students,

individually and collectively. Would the system raise or lower the

standard of scholarship? Would it assist or retard the growth of other

qualities which a college course should develop? The negative will

oppose the adoption of this rule by establishing the three following

points:--

1. Such a system will lower the scholarship both of those who are

exempted from examinations and of those who are not.

2. Such a system will foster dishonesty, jealousy, and conceit.

3. Such a system will deprive those who are exempted from examinations

of valuable discipline in preparing for examinations and in taking the

examinations.

There are several forms in which the partition may be expressed: it

may consist of a single sentence that indicates how the issues are to

be answered; it may consist of the issues themselves turned into

declarative sentences so that they read in favor of the side being

upheld; or it may answer each issue by means of several statements.

The following will illustrate the several methods:--

Proposition: _Resolved_, That football is an undesirable college

game.

Issues:

1. Does football benefit or injure the player?

2. Does football benefit or injure the college as a whole?

Partition (negative):

_First method._

1. We will establish our side of the argument by proving that in each

case football is a benefit.

_Second method._

1. Football benefits the player.

2. Football benefits the college as a whole.

_Third method._

1. Football benefits the player physically.

2. Football benefits the player mentally.

3. Football benefits the player morally.

4. Football benefits the students who do not participate in the game.

5. Intercollegiate football games advertise the college.

The partition is usually found in college debate because in a contest

of this sort absolute clearness is a prerequisite for success. As but

little interest customarily centers around the subject itself, each

debater knows that if he is to make any impression on the audience he

must so arrange his argument that it will, with a minimum amount of

effort on the part of the listener, be clear to every one. To one

reading an argument, a partition, unless of the simplest kind, will

probably seem superfluous; to one listening to a speech in which he is

truly interested, the partition may seem labored. But when the whole

interest centers in the method of presentation, and in the processes

of reasoning rather than in the subject matter, the partition does

increase the clearness of the argument, and should, therefore, be

used.

By way of summary, then, it may be said that the work of conviction in

the introduction is to show the relation between the proposition and

the proof. The arguer accomplishes this task, first, by defining all

words the meaning of which is not generally comprehended; secondly, by

explaining, in the light of these definitions, the meaning of the

proposition taken as a whole; thirdly, by discovering the issues

through a careful process of analysis; and fourthly, by making a

partition when he is engaged in debate and has reason to think that

the audience will not see the connection between the issues and the

discussion.

HOW TO INVESTIGATE A SUBJECT.

A student will hardly have reached this point in the study of

Argumentation before finding it necessary to search for information

that will assist him in the construction of his argument. To one

unfamiliar with a library, a search after facts bearing upon a given

subject is likely to prove tedious. For this reason a few words of

advice concerning the proper way in which to use a library may be of

great help to a beginner. Nothing, however, can be given here that

will even approximate the value of a few hours' instruction by the

librarian of the college in which the student is enrolled. In the

absence of such instruction, one can seldom do better at the outset

than to become familiar with indexes to periodical and contemporary

literature, encyclopaedias, government reports, and the library

catalogue.

The best indexes are the _Reader's Guide, Poole's Index, The Annual

Library Index,_ and the _Current Events Index_. These give

references to all articles published in the principal magazines and

newspapers for many years. In these articles one will find almost

limitless material on nearly every popular topic of the day--

political, economic, scientific, social, educational. The writers,

too, are often of national and even of international reputation, and

the opinions and ideas given here are frequently as weighty and

progressive as can be found. In searching through an index for

articles upon a certain subject, one should invariably look under

several headings. For example, if one is seeking material in regard to

the abolishment of baseball from the list of college sports, he ought

not to consult just the one heading _baseball_; he should in

addition look under _athletics_, _college sports_, and